You seem to be unfamiliar with restaurants, but this isn't how the term is intended in the restaurant business. If that were the case, they would just list everything on the menu as "market price".
Print the price in the menu or having the server tells you the "market price" is not the market price. When the customer is willing to make the purchase, you have established a market price point. If your price is too high, even though you may call it "market price" it is not as you have not sold any.
It doesn't matter if it is a restaurant, a car lot, or a shoe store.
Again, there is what the term means and what you want it to mean, and you continue to confuse the two.
True in practice, though it's a bit misleading as a practice. The terminology dates to fish taverns that had fixed prices for items with relatively stable prices, but varying "market price" for items where the wholesale cost to them varied significantly, resulting in them updating their retail price on a daily basis accordingly.
The definition of "market price" is impacted very little by cute stories that may or may not have any actual basis in history and not at all by what you want it to mean.
market price
Noun
The price of a commodity when sold in a given market.
It doesn't matter what it costs the seller to produce the good. Market price is what it can be sold for. If the seller's cost is higher than market price the seller has a problem. If the seller's cost is lower than market price, they have the potential to profit.
You act like people gravitate toward superior products, as opposed to the product with superior marketing.
You seem to think there is a differentiation between the two. If an inferior product reaches critical market mass through superior marketing, that mass often makes it the superior choice.
Betamax was superior to VHS, but the players were multiples of cost and the content was lacking. Although Betamax was superior for the engineer, VHS was superior for the consumer.
I've yet to see a complaint about the slate tablets, other than the app store for it not being matured.
While that may be true, I have also not seen any review that said the Microsoft tablet is superior to the iPad or Android offerings. The reviews usually sound like "the Surface is OK, but since there is no cost benefit, I'd get an iPad".
That is Microsoft's problem -- a me too product with no compelling advantage.
But buying up startups then killing their work doesn't?
If startups can't get to version one, they have a tough time getting bought.
There is no perfect answer, but I'd rather have my work killed after getting bought/paid rather than squashed by patent suits and losing my investment.
AR-15 lower receivers are not, and have never been made as a stamped part (expect maybe a few mad scientists making one-of-a-kind prototypes). Neither does the AK-47 (a real one that is, they used milled receivers). The guns that 99% of people call AK-47s are actually variants of the AKM, a cheapier replacement for the AK-47, which uses a stamped receiver.
I would have posted as an AC too if making such an uninformed statement. Google "M16 stamped receiver". You will be enlightened. Both the M16 and AK-47 were designed to have, and regularly produced with, stamped receivers. And before you argue the M16 and AR-15 are not the same thing, you should Google that too and make yourself even more familiar with the Stoner design.
The Wikipedia reference might be a good place for you to start. It will be on the first page of your Google search.
Because of the weapon's design, the receiver on an AR-15 is a notoriously easy part to produce, and has been possible to produce on low-end CNC mills for years.
And before that it was designed to be stamped -- very low cost for very high production rates.
You are kind of getting it wrong too. Glocks, XDs, and other polymer pistols are also made of reinforced plastic. It is not the same as the printed plastic.
You are correct that stress points of the plastic frames as well as many of the internals are metal.
However, it is my opinion that even though evolution occurs it does not explain the existence of life.
We have not yet recreated spontaneous generation in the lab. (To the best of my knowledge, anyway.)
Because of this, I believe that although evolution explains the current state of life, it does not explain the origin of life.
So what you are saying is that you do not believe science and, since you have not personally witnessed the origins of life in a laboratory, it is preferable to believe a deity came along, made the earth out of nothing, made a clay figurine of a man, and breathed life into all of creation, except he forgot females which he later scraped together from a rib. Yeah, that is a more plausible situation and sounds much more reasonable that the science approach.
We have never created black holes in the lab. What are those? Did our creating deity rip such a stinky fart that it is engulfing everything around it?
I personally believe that evolution should be taught in schools, but why teach it as the de-facto origin of life?
Because "God did it" has no basis in science. We have a place to teach that -- church. You can pick whatever deity you like best and attend their school. Some might ask for 10% of your income as tuition. Others might insist you kill yourself in the name of their deity but will give you 72 virgins for your trouble.
If we are going to teach creationism in schools, we might as well throw out history books and teach Disney princess stories instead of history -- fairy tales all the way around.
I likely don't have a problem with this, because I don't claim to know how God created everything. From a faith-based point of view, I have some problems with Evolution
It is not about how science fits in to your religion's book of stories. Science is observable whereas religion is believed only because the believer wants to, or, more likely, is afraid of the punishment their religion promises for deviating from the church. It is amazing how people dismiss science to believe their religious teachings, quite often centered around an all-loving, all-forgiving deity that will send them to eternal suffering for failing to believe properly.
we may not understand everything yet, but if we don't endeavor to learn everything we can through Science, we will only block our own growth.
The most sensible statement I have ever seen by someone self-identifying as a creationist. Congratulations, but saying such sensible things might get you thrown out of the creationist club!
Think you weren't? I've been dialing your contacts all morning while dressed appropriately for chatroulette. Your grandma did not look happy, but your wife stayed connected for 45 minutes...
Slashdot Mirror
The gun lobby is untouchable in America.
The gun lobby did not shoot those kids -- a killer did. Would you feel better if he killed them via other means?
And don't fool yourself into thinking 20 fucking year old shit is "working" cuz it ain't working !!
Neither are you, outside of fast food.
Too bad you have not, nor ever will, see any of it in person.
Why is Slashdot showing this as an archived discussion already?
Because you are replying to a post about ancient hardware.
You seem to be unfamiliar with restaurants, but this isn't how the term is intended in the restaurant business. If that were the case, they would just list everything on the menu as "market price".
Print the price in the menu or having the server tells you the "market price" is not the market price. When the customer is willing to make the purchase, you have established a market price point. If your price is too high, even though you may call it "market price" it is not as you have not sold any.
It doesn't matter if it is a restaurant, a car lot, or a shoe store.
Again, there is what the term means and what you want it to mean, and you continue to confuse the two.
So we agree that the only way for the Surface to succeed is if Microsoft pre-loads it to full capacity with porn.
True in practice, though it's a bit misleading as a practice. The terminology dates to fish taverns that had fixed prices for items with relatively stable prices, but varying "market price" for items where the wholesale cost to them varied significantly, resulting in them updating their retail price on a daily basis accordingly.
The definition of "market price" is impacted very little by cute stories that may or may not have any actual basis in history and not at all by what you want it to mean.
market price
Noun
The price of a commodity when sold in a given market.
It doesn't matter what it costs the seller to produce the good. Market price is what it can be sold for. If the seller's cost is higher than market price the seller has a problem. If the seller's cost is lower than market price, they have the potential to profit.
This concept is only difficult if you make it so.
You act like people gravitate toward superior products, as opposed to the product with superior marketing.
You seem to think there is a differentiation between the two. If an inferior product reaches critical market mass through superior marketing, that mass often makes it the superior choice.
Betamax was superior to VHS, but the players were multiples of cost and the content was lacking. Although Betamax was superior for the engineer, VHS was superior for the consumer.
I've yet to see a complaint about the slate tablets, other than the app store for it not being matured.
While that may be true, I have also not seen any review that said the Microsoft tablet is superior to the iPad or Android offerings. The reviews usually sound like "the Surface is OK, but since there is no cost benefit, I'd get an iPad".
That is Microsoft's problem -- a me too product with no compelling advantage.
If you want to order lobster in a restaurant they will still charge "Market Price."
Yes. Market price is what you, or the diner seated at the next table, are willing to pay. This price has nothing to do with their cost of procurement.
But buying up startups then killing their work doesn't?
If startups can't get to version one, they have a tough time getting bought.
There is no perfect answer, but I'd rather have my work killed after getting bought/paid rather than squashed by patent suits and losing my investment.
AR-15 lower receivers are not, and have never been made as a stamped part (expect maybe a few mad scientists making one-of-a-kind prototypes). Neither does the AK-47 (a real one that is, they used milled receivers). The guns that 99% of people call AK-47s are actually variants of the AKM, a cheapier replacement for the AK-47, which uses a stamped receiver.
I would have posted as an AC too if making such an uninformed statement. Google "M16 stamped receiver". You will be enlightened. Both the M16 and AK-47 were designed to have, and regularly produced with, stamped receivers. And before you argue the M16 and AR-15 are not the same thing, you should Google that too and make yourself even more familiar with the Stoner design.
The Wikipedia reference might be a good place for you to start. It will be on the first page of your Google search.
Because of the weapon's design, the receiver on an AR-15 is a notoriously easy part to produce, and has been possible to produce on low-end CNC mills for years.
And before that it was designed to be stamped -- very low cost for very high production rates.
You are kind of getting it wrong too. Glocks, XDs, and other polymer pistols are also made of reinforced plastic. It is not the same as the printed plastic.
You are correct that stress points of the plastic frames as well as many of the internals are metal.
I'm not smelly, you insensitive clod.
You should consider a second opinion. You have become used to the smell. Others around you have not.
Or do you still imagine people run from you shrieking because Godzilla is standing behind you?
If you can't beat 'em with a better product, litigate 'em.
End of discussion.
You have no appreciation for what will happen when this becomes a political issue.
However, it is my opinion that even though evolution occurs it does not explain the existence of life.
We have not yet recreated spontaneous generation in the lab. (To the best of my knowledge, anyway.)
Because of this, I believe that although evolution explains the current state of life, it does not explain the origin of life.
So what you are saying is that you do not believe science and, since you have not personally witnessed the origins of life in a laboratory, it is preferable to believe a deity came along, made the earth out of nothing, made a clay figurine of a man, and breathed life into all of creation, except he forgot females which he later scraped together from a rib. Yeah, that is a more plausible situation and sounds much more reasonable that the science approach.
We have never created black holes in the lab. What are those? Did our creating deity rip such a stinky fart that it is engulfing everything around it?
I personally believe that evolution should be taught in schools, but why teach it as the de-facto origin of life?
Because "God did it" has no basis in science. We have a place to teach that -- church. You can pick whatever deity you like best and attend their school. Some might ask for 10% of your income as tuition. Others might insist you kill yourself in the name of their deity but will give you 72 virgins for your trouble.
If we are going to teach creationism in schools, we might as well throw out history books and teach Disney princess stories instead of history -- fairy tales all the way around.
I likely don't have a problem with this, because I don't claim to know how God created everything. From a faith-based point of view, I have some problems with Evolution
It is not about how science fits in to your religion's book of stories. Science is observable whereas religion is believed only because the believer wants to, or, more likely, is afraid of the punishment their religion promises for deviating from the church. It is amazing how people dismiss science to believe their religious teachings, quite often centered around an all-loving, all-forgiving deity that will send them to eternal suffering for failing to believe properly.
we may not understand everything yet, but if we don't endeavor to learn everything we can through Science, we will only block our own growth.
The most sensible statement I have ever seen by someone self-identifying as a creationist. Congratulations, but saying such sensible things might get you thrown out of the creationist club!
I could have been easily hit by that one...
Think you weren't? I've been dialing your contacts all morning while dressed appropriately for chatroulette. Your grandma did not look happy, but your wife stayed connected for 45 minutes...
"all the girls" = AC's nickname for his left hand
What good is Bluetooth if I have to turn it on every time I want to use it and then turn it off again when I'm done?
He said Bluetooth sucks. I don't think he is here to give you a sales pitch for it.
I have yet to find a Bluetooth gadget that was worth the extra battery drain. YMMV.
Yay, car analogy!
But on a day I don't have any mod points for car analogies. :-(
Whoosh!
1) Italian scientists stop making predictions. 2) World opinion finds Italian courts guilty of gross ignorance and incompetence.